"fascistic disposition" paragraph

[Otto]

Our posts are getting too long to cross the 10k-barrier, but it's hard to
decide what to snip.

----- Original Message -----
From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: "fascistic disposition" paragraph
>
> Not at all. I'm grateful for the opportunity to debate with you, and with
> other reasonable people on this list. The fact that we can do that
amicably
> is a mark of mutual respect, in my opinion. It's only to be expected that
> most of the correspondence here will be about the points people disagree
on.
> There's much which is posted here that I agree with, but don't say as
much.
> Nobody wants 50 posts a day which copy something someone else has written
> with "I agree" appended to the bottom.
>
> On this particular point, you stated that "some readers don't get the full
> meaning of the writing". That's saying that a "full meaning" *is* present
in
> the text, but a reader who doesn't recognise or accept that "full meaning"
> is deficient, which is one of the ways the case for an explicit reference
to
> 9/11 in the paragraph has been argued here. At other times you've argued
> that it's a difference in interpretation, which is a different statement,
> and one I agree with.
>

I agree that this has been a questionable formulation. Of course there is no
hidden meaning and the one who doesn't get it is a fool, of course it's only
different interpretation.

> When I first read the paragraph it didn't evoke thoughts of 9/11 for me at
> all. Simple as that. The same seems to have been true for many other
readers
> as well, including Americans and New Yorkers. When it was raised as a
> possible allusion I considered the case, was momentarily persuaded, but
> then, after reading the paragraph in the full context of the essay, and on
> the balance of the textual evidence, I rejected the interpretation that
> Pynchon was making a specific allusion. I agree that some of the general
> comments might be *applied* to 9/11, and to many other situations, and
that
> that is part of Pynchon's meaning here. However, whether those comments
are
> true for every situation, and for all "measures" which governments
introduce
> in times of war and emergency, is extremely debatable, in my opinion.
>

The fact that we're doing this proves your last sentence is a "true"
statement. It is debatable. Some really intelligent people on this list are
rejecting my thesis, forcing me to think over it, reading the text over and
over.

When I first read the foreword in Dave's posts 9/11 immediately came to my
mind, and I'm really wondering where Knipfel who says the same did get the
idea from. I think I'm going to look for an e-mail address and ask him:

"Early in the essay, he even hints (again without saying as much) at the
events of September 2001 and the effect such events usually have on the
political outlook of a nation."
(Jim Knipfel: "For the Love of Big Brother. Orwell turns 100")

Seems as if the Knipfel-text isn't under at that url anymore (one can still
get from the google-cache), there's another book-review now, entitled:
*70s Hits. Terrorism. How retro* on "Guns, Death, Terror," edited by Jack
Sargeant,
reviewed by Alexander Zaitchik who says about 9/11:

"It dramatically altered the political landscape in this country (...)."
http://nypress.com/16/19/books/

The word choice is surely a coincidence but I think it's a remarkable (and
true) statement.

>
> > "With the homeland in danger, strong leadership and effective measures
> > become of the essence..." (x) -- which can be correctly paraphrased with
> > "homeland security." No need to rewrite anything, it's all there if one
> > wants to see it.
>
> You're swinging back to the argument that my reading is deficient. Your
> paraphrase isn't grammatically or semantically accurate.
>

I believe that interpretation is a decision too. If I have a thesis I try to
find evidence in the text, and I think the paraphrase is correct to draw the
conclusion that by using these formulations P. thought of the actual
US-situation. When my copy arrived my reading of the whole text didn't
change my opinion.

I don't think I want to say that any reading different from my own offered
here is deficient. The contrary is true because only different readings
challenge me to think further. But you haven't convinced me yet that I am,
that Knipfel and the German reviewers I've quoted are wrong, reading too
much into the whole thing.

But again let's thank MalignD for raising the right questions.

Otto